Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deford, Michigan

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was kept, early closure. This is a well-referenced article for a distinctly named populated place, one even assigned a unique ZIP code (48729). The only advocates for any other outcome, including the nominator, have been involved in, and blocked for, sockpuppetry. Non-admin action; technically this is a snow close, but if that makes anyone nervous, call it a criterion #1 (nominator advocated merger, which is not a deletion outcome) or #2 (nomination obviously not in good faith) speedy keep instead. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deford, Michigan

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reason KaseyVincent (talk) 09:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC) I Relive that the information on the page is too minimal to require a entire article. I think in should be merged with Novesta Township. The page as of right now, has been attacked too much and the information is trivial at best.[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 April 1. Snotbot t • c » 10:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Populated places have presumed notability, existence is verifiable, content is sparse but sufficient, and can be expanded. The page has only 3 edits this year, including my moving the image to get rid of the gap. The last vandalism was December 2009. Dru of Id (talk) 11:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As discussed on the talk page, conflict and WP:IDONTLIKEIT are not reasons for deletion. To merge the article, see guidance on merging. Toddst1 (talk) 15:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

collapsing duplicates and socks verified by checkuser

~~Delete~~ I think that the page does not offer enough sources to make it stand out from Novesta township. Look at the page, it doesn't even mention a population total. Yes, any populated place is important, but the page itself looks like it is better served as apart of Novesta Township. Most of the sources on the "town" is only about the location of it. The town has not government and is apart of Novesta juridically. The weather information is that of near by Flint, MI, not Deord, and he source takes you to a website TheWeatherUnderground, which does not provide information on Deford's Climate or provide statistics. I did not nominate this article because I didn't like it, it was that the page itself doesn't not need to have its own article. Not only is all this relevant to the problem at hand, but Deford's history was originally on Novesta's article and removed and placed on this article.KaseyVincent (talk) 21:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Commenter is also nominator, assumed to have !voted "delete" by nomination. postdlf (talk) 01:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have to agree with KaseyVincent. She makes a valid point. If you look back far enough on Novesta's Wikipedia page, you'll see that the history of Deford was actually taken Novesta's page. I do see what Toddst1 and Dru of Id have to say, but the references stated on page are minimal for a town and really only tell you where the town is located, not the stats or population of the town itself. Given that Deford is the only town in Novesta Township and is too small to have a recorded population, I think the article is best served as part of Novesta Township. 66.211.81.156 (talk) 22:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, distinct named populated places, regardless of whether they are incorporated and have their own local governments, merit their own articles. This source alone verifies for me that Deford has or had such a status. At most, it would be merged and redirected to the township or county article; there is indisputably verifiable information, and it is unacceptable that Deford, Michigan would not even be a search term, therefore deletion is not a valid option at all and per WP:ATD this AFD should never have been started. postdlf (talk) 23:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

collapsing duplicates and socks verified by checkuser

Merge I have taken that into account and opened a discussion on deford's talk page with my argument that it should be merged with Novesta Township. I'm not arguing that the pages sources are incredible or unreliable, but It fails to meet the criteria that it should be a stand alone page. It does not provide any information that sets it apart from Novesta Township. With this in mind, I will advise you to make the rest of the comments on the articles talk page. I now understand that this article shouldn't be deleted. KaseyVincent (talk) 23:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ I disagree. All the infromation on the page is for the most part on Novesta Township's Wikipedia page. I do agree with postdlf about not correctly meeting the article for deletion polices but this page is so minimal that It offers not more insite to the town than what Novesta Township has already states. 66.211.81.156 (talk) 23:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Commenter has already !voted "delete" above. postdlf (talk) 00:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ While I do believe you are right, there are somethings like the town's history that can be incorporated into Novesta's page. I think that all out deletion of the article is no longer suitable for the situation at hand. I am leaning more towards merging the two pages. I would also like to note that the photo given for the Deford Christan Academy is false. I'm not sure if anyone else noticed that but just look the image up on google search and it takes you complete away from deford. I started a discussion on the articles talk page, like at stated above to help resolve the problem. KaseyVincent (talk) 23:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Commenter has already !voted "merge" above. postdlf (talk) 00:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Commenter appears to be the same individual as 66.211.81.156 (talk · contribs), both sockpuppets of blocked Emily Bernette (talk · contribs). Toddst1 (talk) 01:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - If that's true, then they should both be blocked, their comments stricken, and this AFD closed. postdlf (talk) 01:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The non-keep votes are bordering on the absurd. The township is a different entity than the community, which is a historically and currently occupied community.[1][2]--Milowent • ^hasspoken 01:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per long-standing AfD precedent, populated places are considered notable. This article only reinforces that precedent, as it has plenty of references. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 07:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Populated communities are considered notable-thank you-RFD (talk) 13:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Diego (talk) 15:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.